Talk:The Substance

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm
	This article is supported by the British cinema task force.
	This article is supported by the French cinema task force.

France: Paris Low‑importance

	France portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject France, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of France on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FranceWikipedia:WikiProject FranceTemplate:WikiProject FranceFrance
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Paris task force.

Horror Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Horror, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to fictional horror in film, literature and other media on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.HorrorWikipedia:WikiProject HorrorTemplate:WikiProject Horrorhorror
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report 5 times. The weeks in which this happened:

Makeup Scene in Plot

I'm fully on board with the culls to the plot section for brevity, but I wonder if perhaps the scene where Elisabeth succumbs to insecurity while preparing for her date ought to be reincorporated. While I'm aware a noteworthy scene does not a plot point make, so many reviews single it out as the most emotionally visceral part of Moore's performance, that the average Wikipedia reader who hasn't seen the film might read the plot section to have it contextualized. Also, from a plot-relevance angle, it seems significant as the point-of-no-return for the character. I'm imagining something like "Sue's rising fame proves to be a point of jealousy for Elisabeth, who fails to make it to a date after a billboard featuring Sue triggers a spiral of insecurity wherein she spends the evening removing and reapplying her makeup with increasing frustration." (Or something like that. I said I'm on board with the brevity, not that I'm capable of it.) Cybr.punk.hckr.elf (talk) 14:36, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Universal Pictures

190.17.42.233 (talk · contribs · IP contribs · WHOIS) and 41.141.208.35 (talk · contribs · IP contribs · WHOIS) have both restored the US as a producing country, citing the Cannes page which I have explained credits no American studios. The latter IP explained:

I'm sorry to say this but, this film was originally co-produced by US as well, and it's also filmed in Los Angeles, California, US, and this movie has American hollywood actors, and...it was originally going to produced by Universal Pictures a Hollywood studio, so it doesn't mean it was a FOREIGN MOVIE!

The first claim is unsourced, the second and third are both unrelated to financing, and the third is the same unsourced as the first.

More compellingly, Draco9904 you added the following footnote:

Although Universal Pictures dropped out of being the film's distributor, the film was still produced and financed under the studio and Universal is still credited as a copyright holder in the credits, making it a co-production with the United States.

As another editor already commented in their removal of the content, this is not supported by the linked Deadline source. Presumably, this is original research. However, it sounds more plausible. I thought I would bring the discussion here. Οἶδα (talk) 07:36, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

The Deadline source only stated that Universal and Working Title were making the film in the announcement, which is vague enough to interpret it as Universal being directly involved in producing (or at least financing) the film. I also did notice that Universal was listed as the copyright holder at the end of the credits, despite Mubi being the distributor and the copyright holder listed in marketing material, from a video of a Q&A at TIFF in which the film's credits were still playing (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=seyGZLvAauk). Still, I'm willing to concede until a verifiable source describes Universal's involvement or lack thereof. Perhaps this can be added as an invisible note. Draco9904 (talk) 10:16, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply and good find on the TIFF video! The only source I can find which named Universal alongside the other studios was Cineuropa, which in my experience is a distinctly more reliable source for accurate production details.

The Substance is produced by Working Title (UK) and A Good Story (France) together with Universal Studios, in co-production with French firm Blacksmith. The movie is sold worldwide by The Match Factory.

Οἶδα (talk) 19:45, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Comparison

Parallels with 'The Picture of Dorian Grey'? Jackiespeel (talk) 18:57, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

I found an article from Reactor where an author compares the two, but it's not the strongest source. It might be worth adding under reception/theme if you can find more critics discussing it. Beckbucket (talk) 12:47, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

I presume this - and this 'and one or two others' (at present) are much the same. Possibly something along somewhat woolly lines - 'people have seen resemblances to the Oscar Wilde story...' and get a better reference lager. Jackiespeel (talk) 16:51, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

There are various references making the comparison already - depends upon which are considered 'good' as Wikipedia sources. Jackiespeel (talk) 10:29, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Some reliable sources doing this:

Stevens, Dana (2024-09-18). "The Substance Lacks Any". Slate. ISSN 1091-2339. Retrieved 2024-09-30.
Shone, Tom (2024-09-21). "The Substance — Demi Moore and the dangers of eternal youth". The Times. Retrieved 2024-09-30.
Heching, Dan (2024-09-21). "'The Substance': What to know about Demi Moore's powerhouse new film". CNN. Retrieved 2024-09-30.
"The Substance review: 'Magnificently tasteless' horror comedy is Demi Moore's 'best big-screen role in decades'". www.bbc.com. Retrieved 2024-09-30.
Ide, Wendy (2024-09-22). "The Substance review – Demi Moore is fearless in visceral feminist body horror". the Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 2024-09-30. and Horton, Adrian (2024-09-28). "Is The Substance brilliant feminist critique or a soulless mess?". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 2024-09-30.
"The Substance". WCBE. 2024-09-22. Retrieved 2024-09-30. ภץאคгöร 15:03, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

So 'Comparisons have been made to Oscar Wilde's The Picture of Dorian Grey.' with links would be appropriate? Jackiespeel (talk) 10:31, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, but more like "Several critics have noted the film's similarities to Oscar Wilde's 1890 novel The Picture of Dorian Gray." ภץאคгöร 10:46, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

'Whatever suits.' Jackiespeel (talk) 17:03, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

'Metamodern body horror' vs strictly 'satirical body horror'?

Justification for including "French Filmmaker" in the notice

I don’t understand why the mention of Coralie Fargeat as a 'French filmmaker' was removed. I think it’s important to add this in the opening lines. The Substance was directed and produced by a French team, and mentioning this early helps give context, especially since the film is in English. It will help readers better understand its cultural background. Also since the English article is often the main source for other language versions, adding this detail will help keep things consistent, especially in countries where Fargeat doesn’t have a separate page).

I would appreciate it if the person who regularly removes this mention could explain why...--Portersonnom (talk) 21:26, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

@Nyxaros: @Portersonnom:

(bringing the discussion from the user talk page here).

Probably better overall to include? We'd need a good reason to deviate from the large numbers of sources that mention her as a French filmmaker or director (including the MUBI official podcast). Here are some notes from the friend of mine that is helping collaborate on the article (edited for clarity):

Including "French filmmaker" in Coralie Fargeat’s introduction is supported by reliable sources, as both Vulture and The Film Stage, RogerEbert.com and Vogue use this term to describe her background. The Vulture, authored by Fargeat, refers to her as a “French director,” for “Revenge” while The Film Stage, RogerEbert.com and Vogue identify her as a “French filmmaker” in the context of her work on The Substance. She is also described as a “French Writer-Director” on the official Mubi Podcast.

Sources:

Crucchiola, Coralie Fargeat, Jordan (2020-04-17). "A French Director Fears Parisians Aren't Taking the Coronavirus Seriously". Vulture. Retrieved 2024-11-16.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

Hammond, Caleb (2024-09-23). "The Substance Director Coralie Fargeat on Playing By Her Own Rules and the Strong Weapon of Humor". Retrieved 2024-11-16.

"The Substance movie review & film summary (2024) | Roger Ebert". www.rogerebert.com. Retrieved 2024-11-16.

Suh, Elissa (2024-09-18). "'The Movie Is Fundamentally About the Violence of Control': Writer-Director Coralie Fargeat Talks 'The Substance'". Vogue. Retrieved 2024-11-16.

MUBI (2024-09-28). THE SUBSTANCE - Coralie Fargeat rips beauty standards to gory shreds | MUBI Podcast. Retrieved 2024-11-16 – via YouTube.

Caleb Stanford (talk) 23:50, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

If you actually read that discussion, you would realize that it is not about not having sources or "what if she is not French?". As I wrote there, any person's background and perspective can and will shape their work, and it's certainly not something that can be expressed by just stating the person's nationality. Mentioning one person's nationality with a word in the lead provides no (cultural) context or "unique perspective" for a film article. By saying "Fargeat is French", we cannot expect readers who only read the lead section to immediately learn how being French influences her work, how she is "critical of American and Hollywood culture" and how it's "not" an American film (although it's an American co-production). Production section actually contains substantial info, and this cannot be summarized by simply stating that the director is French. I think it is much more useful to use our time to make constructive edits. ภץאคгöร 00:20, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Again I don't feel strongly either way; my point is your POV essentially constitutes a deviation from reliable sources which refer to her as a French director. It doesn't have anything to do with providing (cultural) context which I agree it does, at best, insufficiently. While I do express a light agreement with Portersonnom, I would want to look into similar articles to see what the general style is here (e.g., RoboCop doesn't mention that Verhoeven is Dutch). I don't think a broader discussion is needed here. It's really not a big deal either way as this info is covered in the rest of the article (lead is a bit scant anyway and should probably be expanded at some point). Caleb Stanford (talk) 06:31, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

How is this a "deviation"? How is not mentioning a person's nationality in the lead section a deviation from sources and a POV problem? I've referred to her as French. Please read carefully what I wrote above. You seem to have written a reply without reading it. If you agree with Portersonnom, then you agree with what Portersonnom wrote above and in the other discussion (their problem was not whether the person in question was French or not, or lack of sources), which I have already pointed out is wrong. ภץאคгöร 12:14, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Short film Reality+

Are people only in deleted scenes in the cast?

Additional source for box office (close to $70 million)

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-news/oscars-state-of-race-contenders-screened-best-picture-actor-director-1236069055/?taid=674296d577dbbf00014b433a&utm_campaign=trueanthem&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter

Caleb Stanford (talk) 07:45, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Huey pham 04 (talk · contribs), Dhoffryn (talk · contribs), DeanSal1 (talk · contribs): Regarding the box office disagreement and deadline source, it might be better to resolve the disagreement here on the talk page? We also have the option to request WP:3O. Caleb Stanford (talk) 21:29, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

The Numbers page have it at $47 million while Box Office Mojo has it at $55 million so already there is a big difference. I can't remember the source of some other page but basically some markets are not entirely covered in Box Office Mojo (like Brazil). Deadline points out how the movie has overperformed in Latin America so the gross is higher. So with all of that I would have rather used some other sourcing. Dhoffryn (talk) 13:59, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

That makes sense. I'm inclined to agree with the Deadline article here. It may not be that BoxOfficeMojo is unreliable, just that it's not a complete accounting (or hasn't been updated as recently). Caleb Stanford (talk) 17:10, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

I have revisited some pages, I remember how Deadline put movie Boy and the heron at $294 million while Box Office Mojo still has it at $172 million. However The Numbers have it at $292 million (they have maybe updated it with time, don't recall the number back then). Movie did a really big number in China where it grossed $73 million in a 5-day opening (overall it did at least over $100 million). Maoyan Research Institute did give out some numbers for top grossing Asian movies in China but overall some numbers could be tougher to get (probably).

Here all I am seeing at BOM - Colombia and Mexico numbers. So it's not a stretch that movie is going after $70 million. And this Hollywood reporter link that you have posted says it so too.

Like you said BOM is reliable but maybe not entirely complete. So that's why I have more graviated towards Deadline. I don't how much other user still feels strongly using those lower figures tho. Dhoffryn (talk) 18:40, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

I apologise for my exaggerated comments in my edit. I was not involved the previous back and forth edits, but I kept a watch of it. So, when I saw generally reliable, even if contested in this case, sources getting removed because they did not fit with the desired edit, red flags flew up in my brain. Maybe I overreacted.

Nevertheless, I still think that Deadline must be getting their numbers from insider quotes - even if they do not explicitly say so - and industry insiders have an intrinsic motivation to puff up their numbers to make their movie seem successful. However, I do not object if we put a range of numbers ($5X to $6X Million) in the box office box, and if the body of the text says "at least 5X million" or "up to 6X million." If other editors make that change, I will not edit it back. Huey pham 04 (talk) 16:59, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

FWIW Box Office Mojo has a track record of failing to update the international part of the box office gross, in most cases they do get around to it eventually. (They also post early weekend estimates as if they were actually the final counted grosses, which is why occasionally on a Monday-Tuesday you will see nice even numbers replaced with more exact and messy figures and occasionally the box office gross will drop a little bit.) Sometimes The-Numbers is more up-to-date and sometimes Box Office Mojo is, but this is an encyclopedia not a newspaper so there is no need to rush to update and it is best to wait, the figures usually settle out to the same numbers (or very close) when the theatrical run finishes. If you cannot be patient enough to wait until the film finishes I would still urge you to at least wait until Tuesday/Wednesday when the figures from the preceding weekend are normally settled. A few million here or there isn't that important, the film has made 3x multiples of its budget and is clearly a success. -- 109.78.196.173 (talk) 02:44, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Primary source for "satirical"

https://mubi.com/en/substance

Caleb Stanford (talk) 07:47, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Huh? The Mubi website categorizes The Substance in the horror genre. Other sources call it a "body horror". WP:FILMGENRE says to try and stick to the primary genre. I'm sure it is possible to find sources that also include other genres but "Genre classifications should comply with WP:WEIGHT and reflect what is specified by a majority of mainstream reliable sources."

I'm not convinced that bloating the first sentence with multiple genres is the thing for normal readers. Try to stick to the primary genre, horror or body horror. -- 109.76.130.148 (talk) 22:56, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

The multiple sources used to supposedly support the insertion of "satirical" are not convincing if you consider WP:WEIGHT

The Guardian, headline says horor, subheading says satirical.
- P.S. The reference to actual review of the film from Peter Bradshaw in the Critical response section could have been reused instead of adding another unnecessary reference. (See WP:NAMEDREFS)
NYT (Archive copy) specifically lists at the bottom of the genres as "Genres Drama, Horror" only an incidental mention of "satirical" in the article body
- P.S. If you're going to reference a review of the film from The New York Times it would make sense to actually use this review in the Critical response section.
BBC calls it a horror comedy, subheading calls it " satirical body horror"
The Times, mentions that the film is "horrifying" and mentions "satire", these are mentions not genre classifications
- P.S. Again if you're going to reference a review, it would make more sense to reuse the review in the Critical response section.
Mubi.com (Archive copy) categorizes it has horror no mention of satire.

Both Mubi and The Times fail outright as sources to support genre claims and should be removed. You can make an argument and gain WP:LOCALCONSENSUS to include "satirical" but those sources and WP:WEIGHT do not actually support it at present. -- 109.76.130.148 (talk) 23:16, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi @109.76.130.148:

Another: AV Club categorizes as a "horror satire" https://www.avclub.com/coralie-fargeat-pulls-the-substance-film-festival-highly-misogynistic-comments.

To me it looks like clearly a genre description (in this as well as the Guardian and BBC descriptions). At the same time, it doesn't need to be a genre description to be notable to mention in the lead.

As to whether "satire" is supported by the sources - could you clarify the failed verification in this case?

For reference from the MUBI website: "Deliriously entertaining and ruthlessly satirical"?

From The Times: "If you think society’s programming of female beauty standards is unsubtle, try Fargeat’s satire."

And this doesn't consider the other sources. I'm not clear on why the fact that it's in the subheading vs. the heading of the article is relevant to us. Happy to wait for 3rd opinions here. Caleb Stanford (talk) 23:43, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Descriptions in the article texts are not the same thing as genre classifications. I provided an archive copy specifically because Mubi is serving different pages to different people. The AV Club does call it "horror satire" in the article text, I would not say it "categorizes" it in the satire genre. That's still a better source than either Mubi or the Times. All these source make it clear that the primary genre is horror (or body horror). You can make an argument to also include satirical but it is not the primary genre. (Also 5 sources is WP:COATRACK, even if I agreed with you, it would still be better to pick your three best sources.)

Metacritic lists three genres for The Substance Drama Horror Sci-Fi. Rotten Tomatoes lists Genre Horror, Drama. Articles that mention the words satire or satirical is far from what the guidelines actually recommend. You can do it, but I don't think you should. -- 109.76.130.148 (talk) 00:02, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

BBFC classifies it as Genre(s) Drama, Horror. (AFI classifies it as Drama but they wait a really long time before updating.) -- 109.76.130.148 (talk) 00:07, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Sounds like a good case for WP:3O. Can you please follow the instructions at WP:3O#How to list a dispute. Might I recommend that you log in and create an account to participate in such discussions so that other editors can more easily track your contributions? Kind regards, Caleb Stanford (talk) 00:12, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

This article is failing to follow the guidelines and those references are putting undue emphasis on article text instead of actual categorizations of this film. I am informing you about the WP:FILMGENRE guidelines and urging you to actually follow them. If you want another opinion it would be better to take it to WP:FILM for an informed opinion, WP:3O at best only delivers a random opinion from a passing editor who is unlikely to be familiar the project specific guidelines. -- 109.76.130.148 (talk) 00:25, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Again it would be best if this article actually followed WP:FILMGENRE guidelines and tried to stick to the primary genre. Now in addition to "satirical" someone has tried to add the descriptor "feminist" to the first sentence of the article, similarly based on a handful of sources that happen to mention the word. Sticking to the primary genre and weight there is no reason to bloat the first sentence with anything more than horror or body horror "the primary genre or sub-genre under which it is verifiably classified. " Caleb Stanford do you see how including extra descriptors such as satirical or feminist go against what the guidelines actually recommend? -- 109.79.71.144 (talk) 02:51, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi, if you feel strongly about it, why not go ahead and make the change? You could also request a third opinion (as I suggested earlier) or RfC to reach consensus. I don't believe that arguing about one word in the article is likely to be worth either of our time (see WP:Genre warrior). We're all just here to try to help improve the article!

If you want to know my opinion, I think that the humor and satire in the film is quite salient and should be mentioned in the lead early on (I am, again, agnostic as to whether this is as a genre description or something else). Don't take my word for it, see, for example Coralie's own description. I don't think I have stated or implied that satire was the *primary* genre, but more of a subgenre or description. Ideally, I think someone would expand the themes section and we could use this to improve the summary in the lead. Also, the guidelines are there to enforce general principles, and are meant to be broken; what is important is creating an encyclopedia that is informative and places notable, useful, and verifiable information up front.

About the image placement, sounds good to me. I like where it is in filming for now, ideally it would fit better with casting once more information about Lotta has been published.

P.S. Are you the same editor as 109.76.130.148 (talk · contribs)? I will sound like a broken record, but it does help other editors to post under a logged in account. It builds trust and credibility. Kind regards, Caleb Stanford (talk) 04:10, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm hoping I have made the WP:FILMGENRE guidelines clear and that there is a difference between a mere description or theme and a genre classification. You are more than welcome to explore and discuss the themes in the article body and Critical response section but putting them directly in the first sentence of the article goes against what the guidelines actually recommend. I will remove satirical from the first sentence, any editors who believe it should be need to show WP:WEIGHT not just that the term exists as a description.

Users are allowed edit without an account WP:LOGOUT WP:WNCAA and I follow the rules as best I can. I take the IP address that the ISP gives me, they're all within in a similar range (and I am not the anon editor with the long ipv6 address). I do not intend to get an account, if the rules change to prevent logged out editing I probably will stop editing entirely. -- 109.76.131.105 (talk) 09:06, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Section organization

Accolades

I was told by ภץאคгöร accolades can only be added if they there is an existing Wikipedia page and referred me to MOS:FILMACCOLADES stated that a person, organization or product added to a list should have a pre-existing article before being added to most lists. as a results Phoenix Film Critics Society (PFCS), Michigan Movie Critics Guild, Phoenix Critics Circle (PCC) awards, Indiana Film Journalists Association (IFJA) where The Substance, Demi Moore and Margaret Qualley received an awards have been removed from the film's Accolades because They don't have an existing page on Wikipedia.

I was wondering how not adding these accolades helps readers?

MOS:FILMACCOLADES Wikipedia guideline states that " Awards included in lists should have a Wikipedia article to demonstrate notability". "Should Have" is a suggestion if the page is available, It is not "obligatory" by any ,means.

I do believe that to give the most update and accurate information to the reader, the accolades that have been removed and similar accolades that the film receives in the future should be added in a timely manner to the listing. The official website of the awards body should be enough. Ajdamania2 (talk) 14:25, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

You are correct, it is not strictly a requirement (should, not must) that an Award have an existing Wikipedia article but it was used as a simple rule of thumb that more noteworthy awards should have managed to get a Wikipedia article page (but people quickly gamed that system and made sure to create pages for Awards they happened to like, while other pages got merged to List of film awards). The real point and enumerating principles behind those guidelines in the first place was to avoid indiscriminately listing every possible award but to try and list the more important and actually notable awards. Deleting isn't constructive or a good way to collaboratively build an encyclopedia but a long table full of minor awards doesn't help normal readers much either, as most of us have no real way of knowing if Phoenix Film Critics Society award is actually prestigious and important or not. (Other importnat context like if an award actually has one outright winner or multiple winners/honorees is frequently missing or obscure.) If you want to add more awards to the table you might need to discuss, or do more to show that these awards are notable, for example showing reporting by WP:SECONDARY WP:RS reliable sources, rather than self publishing of their own awards results might help.

Ultimately I would point to the importance of WP:PROSE as priority over lists or tables. When the major awards are over there will only be a few at most that are really important and actually worth summarizing with a short paragraph of text. {{Table section needs prose}} -- 109.78.197.162 (talk) 07:50, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

I think you might benefit from bringing this question to WP:FILM. -- 109.76.130.148 (talk) 16:08, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Ray Liotta suggestion

Stabilizer is cerebrospinal fluid?

Accolades section should be moved

The accolades table has gotten a bit unwieldy and should move to its own article, with a summary here - see Wicked (2024 film)#Accolades and List of accolades received by Wicked (2024 film) for a model of how this is done.

I haven't really touched this section so maybe someone who has been involved in the edits want to do it? @PhampH102: @Voteorama: @Ajdamania2: would one of you be interested in doing the move? Thanks!

Caleb Stanford (talk) 18:01, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

I'll do it but figured I would give the opportunity to one of you who was more involved with that section first. So let me know. :) Caleb Stanford (talk) 18:53, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

The sooner the better, WP:GOFORIT. I think it's long enough now to justify a separate list page. Please do write a short few lines of prose to summarize here in this article, you could even do that first, the list article will need similar prose for its lead section. -- 109.78.198.183 (talk) 21:51, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

I counted. By this point, the movie has been nominated for 268 awards. I think that's more than enough for it to be split off. PanagiotisZois (talk) 17:52, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi, can we please ensure that all the accolades the film has received so far are listed? Some of the critics' groups do not have a Wikipedia page for their accolades, but they are all respected and accredited critics' groups.

it seems to me some user misinterpret the following " Awards included in lists should have a Wikipedia article to demonstrate notability"

MOS:FILMACCOLADES Wikipedia guideline states that " Awards included in lists should have a Wikipedia article to demonstrate notability". "Should Have" is a suggestion if the page is available, It is not "obligatory" by any ,means..

As of today, quite a few awards are missing from the accolades.

Many thanks Ajdamania2 (talk) 20:47, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Conversely please be aware of WP:INDISCRIMINATE and try to remember to that the purpose of this encyclopedia is to explain things in meaningful prose not gather data or create long lists. -- 109.77.199.65 (talk) 16:58, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Done Moved to List of accolades received by The Substance. Caleb Stanford (talk) 23:39, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Supporting material for the screenplay section

A possible supporting visual for the screenplay section -- unfortunately it takes up a bit too much space to fit there at the moment. We could revisit this if there's a way to make it fit differently (maybe there's a template for including images like this at the bottom of a section, spanning the width of the article horizontally?)

File:The substance script page 42.png

Caleb Stanford (talk) 19:43, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

The production section explains some of the techniques used in the screenplay, the script screenshot visually demonstrates which is good for clarification and confirmation but the textual description must come first. I don't think the image needs to be directly included and shown on this page. The script is already linked in the External links section if anyone wants to see it. Maybe add a {{Commons category}} box to the External links section first.

I was thinking maybe about some kind of a footnote but I hate to hide context. I haven't used it before myself but maybe {{Commons-inline|Commons-gallery-page-name}} might work to link to a specific image or few images from within the Production section, giving further context or those who want it without cluttering the section with a large image? -- 109.78.198.183 (talk) 22:11, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. Have you seen template:commons category being used in this way on another film page? Caleb Stanford (talk) 23:40, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't have any particularly good examples. I was thinking more of books where editors wanted to highlight the illustrations or make note of the fact that there had been extra effort in the typography or typesetting of the book. (I was also thinking about a time where I'd used {{External media}} but that was a workaround to link to a relevant image that was Copyright and couldn't be used otherwise.) A picture is worth a thousand words, but we still have to write the words.

In theory you could use a manually generated thumbnail separate from the original image: Help:Pictures#Linking_without_displaying In practice though, I'm not sure I've ever seen anyone actually make the effort to do that. (I'm not an expert, I've just been around a while. Not sure even where best to ask for advice on this might be.) -- 109.77.199.65 (talk) 17:24, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Excessively verbose lead sentence

Technically correct but terrible to read. You seriously need to read this out loud, it is objectively not good writing. The guidelines provide general recommendations of how to do things but they cover the general case not every case. Other articles might do this but that doesn't mean that they aren't also verbose and poorly written. Barton Fink was provided as an example but the version of Barton Fink that was Feature Article nominated started with the clear and simple sentence "Barton Fink is a 1991 American film written and directed by the Coen brothers" not the verbose overloaded mess that it used now. Bad writing is still bad writing and Wikipedia is full of bad examples and repeating those mistakes here would still be a mistake. Think about good writing. Think about normal readers. -- 109.76.134.39 (talk) 00:11, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

I agree that the "co-edited" and "co-produced" elements are too much, per MOS:LEADCLUTTER, which says, "Do not overload the first sentence by describing everything notable about the subject. Instead, spread the relevant information out over the entire lead." Furthermore, the first sentences need to follow these relevant policies and guidelines:

MOS:OPEN: "The first paragraph should define or identify the topic with a neutral point of view, but without being too specific. It should establish the context in which the topic is being considered by supplying the set of circumstances or facts that surround it."
MOS:FIRST:

"The first sentence should tell the nonspecialist reader what or who the subject is, and often when or where."
"For topics notable for only one reason, this reason should usually be given in the first sentence."

MOS:CONTEXTLINK: "The first sentence should provide links to the broader or more elementary topics that are important to the article's topic or place it into the context where it is notable."
WP:UNDUE: "Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to the depth of detail, the quantity of text, prominence of placement, the juxtaposition of statements, and the use of imagery." (emphasis mine)

I would actually argue that the second sentence has the more noteworthy context to be the first one, and to name the director in the second sentence. There is absolutely no requirement for the director to be in the first sentence every time; it will depend on the film. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:22, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. Unfortunately they did it again and other editors didn't revert the change so I had to declutter it again myself.(diff) I firmly believe that if writers were forced to read out loud what they have written they would soon learn to write better (simply being forced to review what you have written almost always makes it better).

You make a good point, does anyone really remember G.I. Jane as a Ridley Scott film or does everyone remember it as a Demi Moore film? To avoid arguement I would probably stick to the dull consistency of listing the director first, but I really have no strong feelings about putting Moore before Fargeat at this time. Maybe in future with hindsight we we can better decide where to put the most emphasis, on the lead actor or the director. -- 109.76.135.102 (talk) 16:15, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks @Erik: I think you make good points. It's notable that the film is both written, co-produced, and co-edited by a woman director (few other films nominated for directing have this property; Nomadland does, not sure if there are others). For this reason I think that it should be mentioned that Fargeat co-produced the film in the lead, likely not in the first sentence (in fact this is exactly what MOS:LEAD and MOS:LEADCLUTTER suggest). Happy to take a stab at it sometime. Thanks! Caleb Stanford (talk) 01:09, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

The second paragraph in the lead section is more production-focused. Could Fargeat and the other two producers be mentioned there as part of describing the background of how the film got made? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:10, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes I think would make sense. Thanks! Caleb Stanford (talk) 18:15, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

Official screenplay

The Novel of the White Powder

Are we going to address this film's obvious (but uncredited) resemblance to Arthur Machen's story, or is it going to be another case of hiding it under the rug until the Oscars, just like happened with Hunger Games with Battle Royale? AnyDosMilVint (talk) 15:56, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

We? Show reliable sources WP:RS that address it then maybe it can be included in the article if it is substantial and the sources are good enough. Arthur Machen's The White Powder sounds like yet another Jekyll and Hyde story, and it is rare that a story does not sound like other stories that already exist. (Fairly sure The Hunger Games was compared to Battle Royale from the moment the book was released, many comparisons were made and loudly, and from very early on that author said her influences were a combination of reality television and the ancient stories young people being sacrificed to the Minotaur.) -- 109.77.194.28 (talk) 18:20, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

Good points, but the similarities with respect to Machen's work are more specific and uncontroversial than with Dr. Jeckyll and Mr. Hyde--from the visible symptoms derived from taking the substance (including a conspicuous dark stain in someone's hand) to the fact that the body actually splits in two, rather than simply experience a transformation like it did in Stevenson's novella.

I know The Hunger Games novel was compared to Battle Royale but the author never acknowledged the "borrowing", and besides, there was a months-long blackout in the media (and in Wikipedia) about the obvious similarities between the films. AnyDosMilVint (talk) 21:35, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

"there was a months-long blackout in the media (and in Wikipedia) " {{citation needed}} That's certainly a theory, or maybe there's no conspiracy and plots frequently have similarities. If it is as obvious as you claim then others must have noticed it too. This is why Wikipedia requires reliable sources rather than your own research, an encyclopedia is no place for unfounded accusations. You need to show reliable sources. -- 109.79.163.52 (talk) 15:02, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

The Substance had more than one inspiration:

The film's influences include works by David Cronenberg (The Fly),^[1] John Carpenter (The Thing), Joel & Ethan Coen (Barton Fink), David Lynch (Mulholland Drive), Darren Aronofsky (Requiem for a Dream) and Stanley Kubrick (2001: A Space Odyssey).^[2]

Espngeek (talk) 19:25, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

References

[1]
Howells, Nick (2024-09-19). "The Substance review: Demi Moore is brilliant in the best film of 2024". The Standard. Archived from the original on 19 September 2024. Retrieved 2025-01-31.
[2]
O'Falt, Chris (2025-01-14). "Six Films That Directly Influenced 'The Substance'". IndieWire. Archived from the original on 14 January 2025. Retrieved 2025-02-01.

The Substance ad is an unreliable narrator

@Caleb Stanford: The plot currently relies on the language used and the prediction made in the Substance video ad (watched by Elisabeth in the beginning) about how the Substance works to describe what happens on-screen afterwards, when Elisabeth uses it.

However, things do not happen on-screen as they are predicted in the ad since the spawned being or "version" is not simply a younger version of Elisabeth, can not be accurately summed up as a "younger version of herself", and the subsequent course of events demonstrates that the ad narrates unreliably.

Therefore, simply describing the events as At the hospital, a young nurse covertly gives her a flash drive advertising "The Substance", a black market drug that promises a "younger, more beautiful, more perfect" version of oneself followed by She convulses as her body generates a younger version of herself, who emerges from a slit in her back is using the in-universe language and unreliable in-universe predictions to describe what happens on-screen instead of using what happens on-screen to describe what happens on-screen.

And what happens on screen is that a young woman emerges from Elisabeth's back. That's all we should say in the plot at that point. The nature of the entity that is Sue is unclear and ambiguous and the Substance peddler, being unreliable, is not the key to explaining it. Believing that this can be summed up as "younger version" is an opinion, whereas saying that a ''young woman'' emerges from Elisabeth's back is not opinion, that is a fact.

Per MOS:PLOT: The plot summary should normally set out the basic plot without any attempt to interpret or explain the creator's intent or meaning. Where a plot point is unclear or ambiguous, for example as a result of an unreliable narrator or storytelling technique, out-of-universe language can be used to describe (but not to interpret) the way in which events are presented. Compare with my edit summary (Special:Diff/1274913394): that's equivalent to an unreliable narrator from the pen of a nefarious force in the film, the peddler of the substance -- his advertisement of his product -- and not what happens on-screen —Alalch E. 01:03, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

@Alalch E.: Perhaps you're taking "younger version" too literally. Sue is a younger version of Elisabeth - not Elisabeth herself, a younger version of her. That's repeated in the film and the script several times and a key point of the plot. Let's wait for a 3rd opinion as I fear that further discussion will not be constructive. Best, Caleb Stanford (talk) 01:43, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Why would it not be constructive? Kindly look at the screenplay (source: "'The Substance': Read The Screenplay By Coralie Fargeat That Injects A Fresh Dose Of Body Horror Brilliance". Deadline. 4 December 2024.): She heads towards the sink and faces the steamed up mirror. She attempts to focus. She wipes the mirror with her hand to take the condensation away and discovers... A MAGNIFICENT YOUNG WOMAN IN HER TWENTIES... perfectly formed... incredibly beautiful... and young.

Her features are different from Elisabeth’s, but there is a distant family resemblance.

This was faithfully carried onto the screen and is indeed what happens in the movie. A young woman with features different from Elisabeth's but distantly resembling her emerges from her. A "younger version of" Elisabeth is what the in-universe advertisement is promising, but is not what the film is showing. I am simply saying that "younger version of herself" are not the correct words to use here, and believing that the on-screen events can be summed up using those words is an opinion, whereas "young woman" is a fact, and this fact is also represented in the screenplay.—Alalch E. 10:49, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Alalch, but that's selective quoting. She is in fact, literally referred to as "NewElisabeth" in the script, by, yes, the real narrator (not the "unreliable" narrator of the Substance Voice that you seem fixated on). If you don't think there is any relation between Elisabeth and Sue other than the fact that she emerged from Elisabeth, I'm afraid, we did not watch the same movie and certainly did not read the same script. Caleb Stanford (talk) 17:40, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

I recognize and value that you prefaced your reply with saying "sorry", since I really do not like selective quoting, do not like being told that I am selectively quoting, and here I was not selectively quoting. I quoted a chunk of continuous text within bounds of appropriacy. But no problem. My replies are probably long enough that they don't need the additional reading-into as you're doing. I understand now that you believe that I am trying to push some view that she is an entirely separate person who emerged from Elisabeth ... that's an unfortunate misunderstanding. I am saying that NewElisabeth is not simply young Elisabeth, as in: those words do not convey what the viewer sees while watching the screen and what the reader of our article imagines happens on the screen upon reading them. To the reader of our article, saying "younger version of [Elisabeth]" means a likeness of Elisabeth when she was young, a rejuvenated Elisabeth. Let's think about the reader. The film does not present the viewer with a young Elisabeth, it presents the viewer with a new, young, different-looking woman (ostensibly a "version" of Elisabeth, intended to have a distant family resemblance, but the relationship between the two entities is elaborated throughout the movie, and can not be reduced to "younger version of Elisabeth"), who is not a rejuvenated Elisabeth, not a second body of Elisabeth restored to youth, it is a new body, a New Elisabeth. The question arises: Who is she??

Fuller quote:We soon realize that this is Elisabeth's POV, waking up on the bathroom floor. Her vision is blurry, she is trying to focus...
She turns to the other side and sees...
Elisabeth... lying on her back, unconscious on the white tiles.
... ?
If Elisabeth is lying down on the ground in front of her... Who is she?? —Alalch E. 22:57, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Sue is not young Elisabeth, but she is a younger version of Elisabeth, a word that you seem intent to keep ignoring. I appreciate the attempt to clarify your position, but unfortunately as I suspected, this conversation is not going anywhere. Thanks! Caleb Stanford (talk) 00:19, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

I find this language satisfactory in addressing my concerns: Special:Diff/1275093917. Do you have any problems with it? —Alalch E. 00:51, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

It's WP:PLOTBLOAT to me. Nevertheless, I'll wait for another editor to take a look as it's fine in terms of factual accuracy. Thanks! Caleb Stanford (talk) 06:12, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Timefurtherout (talk) 21:28, 14 February 2025 (UTC) I'm still trying to decide how I feel about the revised version, but in the meantime I was wondering: Should we really be using the screenplay to support our viewpoints in this discussion? I thought that we're only supposed to rely on what's presented in the film itself.

Good question. Caleb Stanford (talk) 00:18, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Yes, we shouldn't be using the screenplay like that. I have removed the "with a distant resemblance to Elisabeth" part, with the edit summary: partial self-rv: rm "with a distant resemblance to Elisabeth" because whether there is such a resemblance is ultimately subjective and we can not use the screenplay to verify the statement about resemblance in the film, because even if the film is made by transferring the narration and dialogue onto film during filming, the result is a different medium, and solely the film should be the primary source for the plot. The resulting version still captures sufficiently well what happens on screen (better than just "younger version"). —Alalch E. 19:52, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Budget range and tax credits.

Template:Infobox film budget says not to cherry pick figures and if there are conflicting estimates to include figures as a range. I see a good faith edit but I do not see conflicting budget estimates, I only see Variety rounding $17.5 million up to the nearest million and getting $18 million. Deadline Hollywood and Variety magazine are both owned by Penske Media Corporation, these aren't entirely separate unrelated sources. It is a trivial difference not actually a different budget figure. Perhaps other editors might disagree with me (or the editor who made the change was repeating it while logged out?) but the Deadline Hollywood reference that is the source of the $17.5 million figure does mention tax credits (because the film was made entirely in France). This makes me think that $17.5 million figure was (probably converted from EURO to Dollars and) after tax credits and only the net budget figure not the gross budget. I would be very interested to learn more if anyone can find reliable sources, so that this article could clarify and properly explain about the gross expenditure before tax credits and how much this film really cost to make. As this was an international production shot in France and included extensive visual effects, it could have received up to 40% in tax credits as part of the Tax Rebate for International Productions (TRIP). I would not be surprised me if the gross budget was significantly higher, more like €25-30 million. -- 109.79.163.52 (talk) 22:19, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Like the reported MUBI purchase price, the budget figure has been updated with new reporting, and the earlier $17.5 million number should be seen in that context. Initially, Deadline reported $17.5 million, and later, Variety stated $18 million. While it may have been assumed that Variety may have rounded up, we now have executive producer Alexandra Loewy directly stating in a new interview with Hollywood Gold (TC 50:56) that the budget is $18 million. Since this is the most recent and explicit statement from someone directly involved in the production, it makes sense to update the infobox. Scombridae (talk) 08:19, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Again I do not believe this is a meaningfully different figure, it is people in conversation doing normal rounding of numbers to the nearest million. Template:Infobox film budget says not to cherry pick so you could include both as a range if you genuinely believe this is a different figure. I do not think this would be a helpful or informative for readers, I think it would be actively unhelpful and misleading, because in this case we do already know the film received tax breaks and of 30% to 40% and the real gross production spend likely to be much closer to $25-30 million. It is just a shame we don't have a gross budget figure available that we could present more accurately in the Infobox summary. -- 109.76.134.14 (talk) 07:47, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

I've updated this figure per the two sources and discussion above (with 17.5-18 in the infobox) -- we are safe to state $18 as its both a correct rounding of $17.5 and the exact figure stated by the executive producer. Caleb Stanford (talk) 00:18, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

I still think this makes it more confusing and less clear to readers and obscures the fact that the stated number seems to represent only the net budget after tax breaks, not actual gross budget total upfront spending outlay. This is yet another case of bikeshedding minor details in the Infobox, the WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE is to summarize key details from the article body (and the WP:LEAD is also supposed to summarize not supplant the article body) but like so many others this article fails to actually mention the budget in the article body.

The budget needs to mentioned in the article body, probably the best place would be the Production section, under Filming. -- 109.76.129.14 (talk) 14:42, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

Agreed about WP:INFOBOX. Hopefully addressed in this edit. I didn't understand the point about actual gross budget (I suspect we would need clearer sources for this detail, so currently we should just report the range of numbers that the sources actually give). OK with me to move the budget to Filming. Caleb Stanford (talk) 19:04, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

I suppose the producer saying it cost $18 million will have to do. (I let experience get in the way of dispassionate objectivity. The $17.5 million figure always seemed more realistic to me because a EURO figure converted to US dollars is unlikely to give a neat round number, but I need to be more objective and accept the word of the producer, even if I personally believe they're rounding up for conversational purposes.)

We know the film received substantial tax credits, reliable sources repeatedly state it as a big reason for making the film in France. The figures being stated as the "budget" are after tax credits have been deducted i.e. net cost. The actual cost, the gross production budget and amount they needed to spend to up front to get the film made would be about 30-40% higher, but no one is on record stating what that higher figure would have been. -- 109.76.129.14 (talk) 23:00, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

External media

Excessive Design & Effects section?

Semi-protected edit request on 1 March 2025

Gross undue precision?

The gross was listed in the lead section as $77.2 million (same as the Infobox and aritcle body) and Caleb removed the decimal place arguing that it was undue precision. If this is undue precision then why is it only undue precision in the lead section and not undue in the Infobox or article body? (Wikipedia used to list the full precise box office gross figures, but discussions at project film decided that readability was more important than precision, and it was decided to that the gross should be rounded for readability but iirc there wasn't consensus on what level of decimal place should be used and some editors expressed concern that rounding might seem misleading in some cases.) WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE and WP:LEAD state that they are intended to summarize what is in the article body, and IMO using the same figure as the article body is the most appropriate way to summarize. By all means pick a level of decimal places that you believe is appropriate but use is it consistently. As this film has grossed multiples of its budget and is clearly a financial success the extra decimal place of precision does not seem necessary at all. This is an encyclopedia, and consistency is important, and it would be best if the same level of precision for the box office gross was used consistently in all three places. -- 109.76.129.14 (talk) 14:30, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

Agreed about MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE, both lead and infobox should summarize. Hopefully addressed in this edit. Caleb Stanford (talk) 19:05, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

That's better but now we have $77 million in the lead and Infobox but $77.2 million in the Box office section of the article body. I still see no good reason not to use the same figures consistently in all three places (there's no rule requiring it, and Wikipedia film articles are wildly inconsistent, but I don't see any reason why an encyclopedia should not be consistent). -- 109.76.129.14 (talk) 23:00, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

Then with no explanation whatsoever User:TropicAces comes along and changes the box office gross in only the Infobox leaving the article with three different box office gross figures which is just not constructive. This isn't new, I've asked him to explain but he just keeps carelessly doing it over and over again, leaving articles in an inconsistent state. -- 109.77.194.109 (talk) 23:48, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

birth of sue...

Kubrick reference is "The Shining" not 2001

Themes of Self-Harm

With respect, and acknowledging that I am a new editor, a sourced essay on the film's commentary on self-harm was rejected as unreliable, but the essay itself is well-sourced and appears to be sound original research. It seems to be an important theme, but one that many critics have overlooked in favor of broader discussion on beauty standards, so I believe it's worth mentioning. Althomas39 (talk) 12:49, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I agree that the essay makes a good point that is currently missing from the article. I haven't found any info about What Sleeps Beneath, but the author appears to have credentials as a visual artist and the source may be usable (per WP:ABOUTSELF and WP:SPS) as a reliable source for its own perspective. Caleb Stanford (talk) 04:50, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

WP:ABOUTSELF should be used for facts about Juilia Betts. Her opinions about a film she's not involved in should only be cited if she were an acknowledged professional film critic or analyst or other related expert who has published it in a reliable source. DonQuixote (talk) 11:25, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

I see, so in my understanding, the issue here isn't that the critical analysis itself is unsound, but that the source (What Sleeps Beneath) and author (Julia Betts) are deemed unverified. I was following the trail to the primary sources (Palgrave, Deadline, The Scholar & Feminist Online, Psychology Today) to verify the legitimacy of Betts' claims, but to include a mention of the theme of self-harm in the article, I ought to find a more reputable source that makes the claim. Althomas39 (talk) 12:23, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a tertiary source that summarizes already published materials. What you're trying to do "I was following the trail...to verify the legitimacy of Betts' claims" is the purview of secondary sources: i.e. fact-checking and/or peer-review. Wikipedia cites and summarizes secondary sources that have a fact-checking department and/or a peer-review protocol. DonQuixote (talk) 12:34, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

@DonQuixote Apologies for the WP:ABOUTSELF mistake! I thought that under WP:SPS / WP:BLOGS this could be considered a reliable source for the critical commentary itself, due to: "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications."

The author is well-credentialed as a visual artist and holds an academic post in her field. I see no difference between this and the other critical commentary that we cite. Further, the point provides a useful critical take on the film that is missing from the current narrative. Thanks! Caleb Stanford (talk) 17:12, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Reputable journals and magazines are always more preferable and reliable than self-published blogs. Having said that, What Sleeps Beneath appears to be an online magazine rather than a blog. Being outside my wheelhouse, I'm not familiar with this source nor it's reputation, so I'll defer to others on the reliability of this source. DonQuixote (talk) 18:19, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Ok, thanks! Caleb Stanford (talk) 20:00, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

{answering from my talk} Other than I do not know what makes What Sleeps Beneath notable to be used as a reliable source to begin with, my other concern was User:Althomas39's first two edits immediately after joining were adding the same (and if I may, obscure) website. Their second edit added an essay from the same website to another Wiki article, written by an author also with the name Thomas. Mike Allen 20:29, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

If I may, and I don't want to sound defensive, because your suspicion seems fair... Yes, I am aware of the website What Sleeps Beneath, I've read it a few times, and their essay on The Substance is what spurred me to make a Wikipedia account because I saw a theme (and in my eyes, an important one) that wasn't being noticed by other critics. Maybe I was overzealous in adding other notable edits (again, in my eyes) that I've seen on that site, but I'll gladly let my other edit slide.

As for the website's reputation and credibility, I'm reading that the author has lengthy credentials in visual arts, is RISD-educated and currently on faculty at Carnegie Mellon. The website itself has another essay currently nominated for a Bram Stoker Award for Superior Achievement in Non-Fiction and has several Ph.D. level authors. I do concede that it is still obscure, though.

As for the name, I have no defense. I share one of the 10 most common surnames in the U.S. with the author of that other article. If that's the disqualifier, I admit defeat. Althomas39 (talk) 12:25, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

A word of advice, it's been less than a year since the film came out. Acadaemics and critics are rather slow to start analyzing a work of fiction. DonQuixote (talk) 13:11, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Understood, I'm just wondering why this analysis is invalid. Because we're talking about critical analysis of the themes of the film, I'm having difficulty understanding where in WP:RS we draw the line between reliable and unreliable. Using WP:APPLYRS, I went to check the verifiability of the author's claims, found them to be sound, and also confirmed that the site goes through a fact-checking process prior to publication. I don't see anything in RS that suggests that a source must be a widely-known outlet—it recommends editors exercise caution when using questionable or self-published sources (if that's what this is, I'm still a little unclear on that designation, as well), but how much more caution can I exercise apart from researching the author, the website, and the sources for the author's claims?

Again, I know this is sounding hyper-defensive on this specific source, I'm just trying to learn where exactly the line is drawn. Althomas39 (talk) 13:55, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

FWIW, I maintain that there is at least a case to be made here that the source is reliable per WP:SPS on the basis of the credentials of the author(s) in this case. See also WP:NEWSBLOG, WP:RSCONTEXT, WP:SCHOLARSHIP. One thing to change in your original edits would have been to cite the claim as coming from the author, not from the site itself, per the recommendation at WP:NEWSBLOG. The site (which is a magazine) may or may not be as reliable as the author, but may become reliable in time. Caleb Stanford (talk) 23:54, 3 June 2025 (UTC)